Hillary Clinton Under Attack And On Fox News

Update II: MoonOnPluto in the comments section provides coverage of the Hillary appearance on CNN. As to the Fox News interview Hillary did very well. Hillary planted a lot of time bombs against Obama in these interviews (for example calling for more investigations of the IRS scandal). Without naming Sarah Palin while answering a question about Sarah Palin, Hillary shows some sister solidarity. She also attacks age based discrimination from Obama White House dudes against Ambassador Holbrook. Here’s Part I of the interview which is mostly about Benghazi and Bergdahl:

—————————————————————————————————-

Update: Hillary Clinton on a CNN “townhall” at 5:00 EDT is sure to be asked about the news that is breaking: US captures first suspect in Benghazi attack. CNN’s “townhall” is bound to be boring. There will be questions CNN will feel they have to ask and they will ask them. But to get a sense of what CNN really wants to dish about listen to the questions they choose “from the public”.

The real show will be tonight on Fox News when two, real, tough, fair and balanced journalists (brutal Bret Baier at 6; mighty Greta Van Susteren at 7) question the unsinkable Hillary. Fox News is Ready for Hillary. Hillary better be ready for Fox News.

———————————————————————————-

It’s fun to watch Hillary Clinton lead Republicans/conservatives and leftist haters down the garden path. The Hillary Clinton book tour is underway.

The reviews of Hillary Clinton book tour week one (and now week two) are in and they foolishly proclaim the whole ordeal to be a disaster. Those that lack the courage to attack Hillary directly take a dive and proclaim the book ‘a bore without news’. The left denounces Hillary as not sufficiently Obama level crazy. Republican/conservatives miss the point entirely.

Well not all Republican/conservatives. Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge showed Republicans/conservatives how to utilize the Hillary Clinton book tour to their advantage. But instead of following Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge’s lead most Republican/conservatives took a u-turn into futility.

What did Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge do? Last week, underneath a picture of a pig nasty Barack Obama observed by a serious Hillary Clinton, Matt Drudge blasted this headline: ‘SEXISM’ IN ’08

In her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” Clinton wrote that she rejected a request from the Obama campaign to attack Sarah Palin, who was then running for vice president.

“That very first day, the Obama campaign said, ‘Well, we want you to go out there and criticize her,’ and I said ‘For what? For being a woman? No, let’s wait until we know where she stands, I don’t know anything about her. Do you know anything about her?’” Clinton said she told the Obama campaign.

In response to Clinton’s revelation, Palin tweeted: “Look who fired the 1st shot on the real ‘war on women.’ Hint: it wasn’t the GOP. See this excerpt from Hillary’s book,” accompanied by a picture of “Hard Choices.”

A senior Obama campaign official said that the request for Clinton to speak was tailored specifically to Palin’s speech after McCain picked her as his running mate, in which she made a direct pitch for Clinton supporters.

Notice, Hillary Clinton’s truth-telling gave Republicans a way to repudiate the Obama “war on women” attack against Republicans. The Obama henchmen saw the danger to their 2014 hopes and tried to limit the damage Hillary Clinton inflicted on them. To this day Hillary Clinton repeats the charge every time she is asked possibly because Hillary knows that if any leftist can be found to run against her in 2016 the sexism and misogyny of 2008 will return full force against her. Only Sarah Palin took advantage of this new weaponry.

Why did Hillary do this? Aside from a potential leftist candidate running against her using sexism as a not wo veiled weapon, Hillary takes seriously her commitment to women’s rights and wants to let out a bit of the truth of what happened in 2008. A lot of purist know-nothings that supported her in 2008 are angry that Hillary did not “speak out” at the time about the Obama sexist attacks on Sarah Palin. But we all knew and it was remarked at the time that Hillary Clinton never attacked Sarah Palin.

Lots of political “observers” waited in vain for Hillary to drop a bomb on Sarah Palin in 2008 but that never happened. The purist know-nothings wanted Hillary, remember she was at that point smeared as a “racist” and has-been by Obama thugs and Big Media, to say something against the Obama campaign that Obama Big Media would discount as “sore loser talk”. Instead Hillary managed to block, at least for a while the hate driven misogynistic and sexist attacks against Sarah Palin.

All this Sarah Palin understands and that is why she began to tweet. The “war on women” strategic lie which has so profited Obama Dimocrats could be undermined and Sarah Palin went for it. If Palin dared, she would send Hillary a very public thank you and ask for a meeting to discuss Obama sexism and how to fight politically motivated misogyny.

Palin and Drudge showed the way. Instead of taking a lead from Sarah Palin and Matt Drudge the blood ran hot on one too many Republicans/conservatives who chose to refight fights they have lost, lose and will continue to lose.

So what did Republican/conservatives do instead of investing time and publicity on this potentially game changing gift from Hillary? They went for broke.

It was sad. Republicans/conservatives and the leftist loons mocked Hillary saying that she and Bill were broke and in debt when they left the White House. What Hillary said is a fact and historically accurate. Further, other than feeding a need for mockery it gains Republicans/conservatives nothing. The Hillary hating left does not gain anything from this either.

Hillary and Bill left the White House broke and in debt because of all the futile panty sniffing investigations brought about by Republicans forced them to hire lawyers and get into debt. The public still has not forgotten nor forgiven Republicans/conservatives for such panty sniffing stupidity so Republicans/conservatives are doing their best to remind the public of their panty sniffing stupidity and how they are not to be trusted with the investigative tools of government.

Hells Bells, Kenneth Starr the sniveling panty sniffing inquisitor has admitted he made a mistake in his panty sniffing pursuits. Richard Mellon Scaife and his right hand man Christopher Ruddy – the top Hillary and Bill Clinton tormentors of the 90s – are now Hillary and Bill Clinton friends and even contributed to Hillary Clinton 2008. David Brock the top Clinton tormentor now is in the Clinton camp too.

But old habits die hard and instead of helping themselves by undermining the “war on women” hogwash Republicans/conservatives undermine themselves. The self described “morons and moronettes” at Ace of Spades are featuring frequent comments in many articles about Hillary requiring a walker to prop herself for a People magazine cover photo. This all comes from a moronic article at Washington Free Beacon alleging that Hillary was using a walker. More and more stories came out about doddering ol’ Hillary and the walker. This from a party that twice nominated for vice president a guy with many heart attacks.

The morons and moronettes at Ace of Spades are having fun and using some clever mockery of Hillary photos to pleasure themselves. We get it. It’s often fun to poke fun and laugh at your opponents and that is what Ace of Spades is engaged in even while trying to keep alive a narrative of Hillary being too old and feeble to be president. It’s a waste of time but we can see the fun of having fun. It will eventually come back to haunt them when sexist pigs fighting for survival in 2014 attack them as waging a “war on women”.

Tommy Vietor and the misogynist sexist dudes of Obama 2008 will clutch their pearls at those dastard Republican/conservatives who are saying such mean things about Hillary even though they are the ones who began the “war on women” and hate Hillary more than any Republican/conservative.

Smart Republican/conservatives should be inoculating themselves and their political interests by talking nonstop about nasty sexist misogynist Barack Obama. Hey we wrote about that long ago. But somehow they just can’t help it.

As foolish and emotion driven as Republicans are, the left is much worse. Take for example the Hillary interview at NPR. We’ll just copy from our comments section:

Hillary haters think this interview on gay marriage somehow hurts Hillary. But this is the tough Hillary we like. Hillary is right on the facts and the leftist interviewer is one of those “liberals” who ignores reality. Bill Clinton signed DOMA because it was the best strategy to stop a constitutional amendment against gay marriage proposed by Democrats such as Sam Nunn. It’s great to listen to Hillary call her out:

HILLARY CLINTON: “I think you’re reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the President has said – just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you’re not one hundred percent set, thank goodness, you’re constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time. As Secretary of State, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything. They’re never open about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it’s good if people continue to change.”

GROSS: “So you mention that you believe in state by state for gay marriage. But it’s a Supreme Court too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?”

CLINTON: “Of course. And you know, again, lets…we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I’m proud of our country, I’m proud of the people who have been on the front lines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case. And there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to make it even more difficult and greater discrimination and what DOMA did is at least allow the States to act. It wasn’t going to yet be recognized by the federal government but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband was the first to say, that you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA, thankfully, were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward and that’s what we’re doing.”

GROSS: “So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the 90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view.”

CLINTON: “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”

GROSS: “I understand but a lot of people believed in it already back in the nineties. They supported gay marriage.”

CLINTON: “To be fair Terry, not that many. Were there activists who were ahead of their time, well that was every true in every human rights and civil rights movement but the vast majority of Americans, were just waking up to this issue, and beginning to think about it, and grasp it for the first time, and think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did, or their son, or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast, by historic terms social, political and legal transformation and we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground when in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward. Maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped but nevertheless, we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country is solidly established although there where be places, Texas just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.”

GROSS: “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or was the America public the change –”

CLINTON: “Because I said I’m an American so of course we all evolved and I think that’s a fair conclusion –”

GROSS: “So you’re saying your opinion on gay marriage changed”

CLINTON: “You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody is always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publically supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across the country if nobody changed their mind and thank goodness so many of us have.”

GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”

CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”

GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand -”

CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”

GROSS: “You know I’m just saying, I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.”

CLINTON: “No. That is not true.”

GROSS: “Okay.”

CLINTON: “I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don’t think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. When I was ready to say what I said, I said it.”

Leftist loons will attack Hillary for all the above. But Hillary is passionately stating the historical truth. The looney DailyKooks left will join Republicans/conservatives in attacking Hillary even on silliness such as this.

On Syria, her early support for air strikes revived liberal concern about her self-described “bias towards action,” recalling her vote for the Iraq War in 2002 that stymied her last presidential ambitions. She recently apologized for the vote in her new book.

Now on Iraq, she finds herself in a familiar and uncomfortable position between a war-weary Democratic Party on one side and hawkish Republicans eager to paint her as weak on the other. She’s tried to thread this needle before and it didn’t work well.

“The current crisis in Iraq is a reminder of the dangers Hillary Clinton faces with the Democratic base,” said Stephen Miles of the progressive group Win without War. “Today, with the threat of military action once again on the table in Iraq, … we’ll be looking to see if her recent denunciation of her 2002 vote for the Iraq War represents a true change of heart or was simply an effort to rewrite history in advance of a 2016 run.” [snip]

“A policy of weakness and accommodation that came from the Obama and Hillary Clinton team is one that’s led to very serious and negative results,” said Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, on Fox News. “There’s almost not a place in the world that’s better off because of [Clinton’s] leadership in the State Department.” [snip]

Some analysts predicted al-Maliki’s crackdown on the Sunni minority in the country would revive a dormant insurgency, but on Thursday, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said the insurgents’ success was unforeseeable. “I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state. That’s why it’s a wicked problem,” she said.

Voters will have to debate that one, to determine if it’s a satisfactory answer for someone who likely wants to be commander in chief.

ISIS’s rise in Iraq may have no American policy solution, and for Clinton, that makes it an equally “wicked” problem politically.

Now that the spotlight has shifted to Iraq, the decision by the Obama administration not to arm moderate Syrian rebels at the outset is coming under scrutiny by critics who say the hands-off policy allowed the extremists to flourish.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state.”

Gee, Hillary Clinton sure sounds smart and on the job when you read the entire quote. Hillary saw that this was a regional problem not just about one country. Wow, way to go girl.

Sure, the leftist loons at DailyKooks won’t be happy ever with her. But she sure sounds as if she knows what she is talking about. Mitt Romney’s comments sound kinda stupid when you read the full quote.

In a different move that now looks more prescient, she in August of 2007 called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace al-Maliki with “a less divisive and more unifying figure,” prompting an angry response from the leader.

Now, her response to the situation in the country is dependent on the man who wielded her Iraq policy against her six years ago. As a Democrat and one of Obama’s top foreign-policy officials, the strength of her foreign policy record—and by extension, her raison d’etre for a White House bid—rides on the success of Obama’s.

Read that last line and you will understand why Hillary Clinton has to begin a protracted attack against Barack Obama and his failed policies. The left will hate her and the right will be confused, but that is what Hillary must do.

Voters believe Hillary Clinton would do a better job on both foreign and domestic policy issues than President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.

In a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday, those polled were asked to rank whether the former secretary of state would do “a good job” handling various issues. For every issue tested, Clinton’s scored higher than the president.

“A majority think Clinton would do a good job on all nine issues tested in the poll; Obama’s job approval rating never breaks 50 percent on any of those same issues,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “None of this means that Clinton is a lock for the White House, but it is an enviable position for any candidate to be in.”“It suggests that the president’s low marks on most issues might not drag Clinton down if she runs for the White House again.”

Every time Republicans/conservatives or the left attack Hillary on silly issues such as “broke” they help Hillary. Lucky for Hillary they just can’t help themselves.

The danger for Hillary remains. If Republicans/conservatives finally wake up and tie Hillary to Obama in a credible way then Hillary has problems. That’s why we advise Hillary break away from Obama before Republicans have a chance to do damage.

Maybe Hillary should string the Dimocratic Party along until the last minute. Meanwhile, taking larger and larger potshots at both sides of haters, and keepin’ it real. She can then decide as she goes along if this is what she wants to do for the next ten years, or if she says, “Nuts to this”, just keep letting Obama dig his own grave. She can toss dirt on his grave, every chance she has.

The Dimocratic Party deserves to be on pins and needles waiting for her to possibly toss in her hat. So people like Warren might not get the same donor backing the longer her WObots wait for Hillary’s decision. Oh whadda shame.

It’s actually nice to have Hillary in the drivers seat, the stronger she gets, the happier her supporter are, and the more spit wads are tossed at her by the haters.

Here’s another poll that I just posted at the end of the last thread that isn’t good for Baracko…

June 16, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Things have gotten so bad for Obama, one of his Government run news stations is finally reporting that 60% think Obama sucked at Benghazi. Funny, that this is just being reported now that Iraq is in flames. We get 60%, we all know it’s worse than that when CNN is reporting it.

—

(CNN) – Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a new poll shows.

The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday indicates only 37% are satisfied with the administration’s response to the September 2012 assault that killed four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

In a different move that now looks more prescient, she in August of 2007 called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace al-Maliki with “a less divisive and more unifying figure,” prompting an angry response from the leader.
——————————————————-

I could swear I caught a sound bite of Ofucktard blaming the Leadership in Iraq for the mess they are in because they are non-inclusive. Bla, bla, bla we can’t do it for them.

U.S. troops will not be ordered into combat in Iraq, but there will be boots on the ground.

President Barack Obama is sending 275 troops to Iraq for security of U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy, the president said in a letter to Congress Monday.

According to a statement by Press Secretary Jay Carney, the troops will assist with the relocation of some staff from the embassy.

“These U.S. military personnel are entering Iraq with the consent of the Government of Iraq. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad remains open, and a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission,” Carney said.

Obama also is considering sending Special Forces into Iraq to help with training and other purposes, but not in direct combat, The Associated Press reported.

“The President was very clear that we will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq,” said NSC spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “That remains the case and he has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces. As you know, already over the past year we have been steadily increasing our security assistance to the Iraqi government, including training inside Iraq by the U.S. Embassy’s Office of Security Cooperation and in Jordan; equipment; and intelligence.”

U.S. officials with access to the latest U.S. intelligence on Iraq told Fox News it “appears likely/probable” that U.S.-made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents.

It is possible that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters acquired them from army bases they have taken over in recent days, the sources said.

The Stinger missile is a shoulder-fired surface-to-air weapon that is used against aircraft.

As ISIS forces have advanced through Iraq, concerns have increased that more U.S.-made weaponry could fall into the hands of the radical group.

Iraqi intelligence officials said ISIS fighters managed to take control of two big weapons depots late last week holding some 400,000 items, including AK-47 rifles, rockets and rocket-propelled grenades, artillery shells and mortars. A quarter of the stockpiles were quickly sent to Syria in order to help the group’s comrades there, they said.

Also last week, according to a report from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center, the ISIS “now possesses scores of Iraqi military equipment originally provided by the United States, from Humvees and cargo vehicles to small arms.”

HATTIESBURG, Mississippi — A new poll from WPA Research shows conservative Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel has shot up to an eight-point lead, outside the margin of error, over Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) a little over a week from the runoff election.

“We are going to keep going out and meeting Mississippians and talking about the issues that matter to Mississippians,” McDaniel said. “We have hit multiple cities in just the last few days, and we’ll keep going out, answering questions and talking to the people. That’s what they want to hear. They don’t want a senator who avoids them. They don’t want a senator that avoids the press or avoids town halls. They want someone that they can [access]. That’s who we are, and that’s one of the reasons we have the momentum that we have right now – because we have been around the people and we are talking about the issues that really matter.” [snip]

McDaniel also said he thinks the Chamber of Commerce is supporting Cochran—the group just announced another big ad buy heading into the runoff—because Cochran will vote for amnesty if he gets back into the Senate. In 2013, Cochran voted to advance the Gang of 8’s immigration bill to move forward, allowing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to take it to the floor for a final vote, before ultimately voting against the passage of the bill.

“Sen. Cochran has a very unfortunate record on issues of illegal immigration,” McDaniel said. “He’s voted twice against the border fence; he’s voted to support amnesty. We know that’s the very reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting him at this point. They’re counting on Sen. Cochran to support their plan for amnesty, and that’s the reason he won’t sign the pledge, and that’s the reason he won’t take a position on it because I think he intends to vote for amnesty. I am not, under any circumstances ever, going to vote for amnesty.”

McDaniel told Breitbart News, too, that he thinks former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s quarter-million-dollar donation to Cochran’s Super PAC, Mississippi Conservatives, is meant to purchase influence over Cochran on something.

“Bloomberg, like every insider and every lobbyist, seeks influence over Sen. Cochran,” McDaniel said. “And now there must be some degree of influence because $250,000 is a lot of money for an individual to give—and it’s amazing he would give it to a PAC named ‘Mississippi Conservatives PAC’ for goodness’ sake. There’s nothing conservative about Michael Bloomberg. He’s anti-Second Amendment. He’s anti-Mississippi values. And I can only assume there’s been some arrangement where he’s going to have some sort of influence over Sen. Cochran’s voting record.”

Washington superlawyer Cleta Mitchell represents True the Vote, one of the groups illegally targeted by the IRS in the scandals that have exposed the agency as a partisan operation. True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht has been harassed by federal law enforcement authorities representing three different federal agencies. They represent the price of politics in the Age of Obama.

Cleta has just served the letter below on the attorneys at the Department of Justice representing the IRS in True the Vote’s pending lawsuit referenced in the subject line below. She has also served the letter on Steptoe & Johnson partner Brigida Benitez. Benitez comes in for special attention in Cleta’s letter; she represents the IRS defendants who are sued in their individual capacity.

Cleta has graciously forwarded a copy of her letter to us. Given the newsworthiness of the subject, we are promptly posting it verbatim without further comment for the moment:

As you know, True the Vote (“TTV”) filed its lawsuit in the above-referenced matter on May 21, 2013. By the time TTV filed its suit, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and its employees and officials were on notice of the commencement of several congressional investigations. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (“Oversight”), the House Committee on Ways and Means (“Ways and Means”) and the Senate Finance Committee (“Senate Finance”) (collectively, “the Committees”) have each provided notice to the IRS of their ongoing investigations into the IRS, and specifically, Defendant Lois Lerner and her activities related to the issues involved in the TTV litigation for over a year now.

Late Friday, the IRS apparently advised the Ways & Means Committee that the IRS has “lost” Lois Lerner’s hard drive which includes thousands of Defendant Lerner’s e-mail records. However, several statutes and regulations require that the records be accessible by the Committees, and, in turn, must be preserved and made available to TTV in the event of discovery in the pending litigation. Those statutes include the Federal Records Act, Internal Revenue Manual section 1.15.6.6 (which refers to the IRS’s preservation of electronic mail messages), IRS Document 12829 (General Records Schedule 23, Records Common to Most Offices, Item 5 Schedule of Daily Activities), 36 C.F.R. 1230 (reporting accidental destruction,) and 36 CFR 1222.12. Under those records retention regulations, and the Federal Records Act generally, the IRS is required to preserve emails or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for preservation.

Therefore, the failure for the IRS to preserve and provide these records to the Committees would evidence either violations of numerous records retention statutes and regulations or obstruction of Congress.

Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the bad faith destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. See Aramburu v. The Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1407 (10th Cir. 1997). The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they have been “lost” appears to evidence bad faith. 18 U.S.C. § 1505 makes it a federal crime to obstruct congressional proceedings and covers obstructive acts made during the course of a congressional investigation, even without official committee sanction. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 300–01 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Tallant, 407 F. Supp. 878, 888 (D.N.D Ga. 1975).

Further, by letters dated September 17, 2013, TTV provided notice to counsel for the individual IRS Defendants in this litigation. The “Individual Defendants” are: Steven Grodnitzky, Lois Lerner, Steven Miller, Holly Paz, Michael Seto, Douglas Shulman, Cindy Thomas, William Wilkins, Susan Maloney, Ronald Bell, Janine L. Estes, and Faye Ng. TTV’s September 17, 2013 correspondence reminded you and your clients of the Individual Defendants’ obligation “not to destroy, conceal or alter any paper or electronic files, other data generated by and/or stored on your clients’ computer systems and storage media (e.g. hard disks, floppy disks, backup tapes) or any other electronic data, such as voicemail.” We identified the scope as encompassing both the personal and professional or business capacity of your clients and involving data “generated or created on or after July 15, 2010.” See Attached Letters to Ms. Benitez and Messrs. Lamken and Shur.

As the D.C. District Court has found, “[a] party has a duty ‘to preserve potentially relevant evidence . . . “once [that party] anticipates litigation.”’” Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal citations omitted). In fact, “[t]hat obligation ‘runs first to counsel, who has a duty to advise his client of the type of information potentially relevant to the lawsuit and of the necessity of preventing its destruction[,]’” and “also extends to the managers of a corporate party, who ‘are responsible for conveying to their employees the requirements for preserving evidence.’” Id. (internal citations omitted).

By letter dated September 25, 2013, Ms. Benitez acknowledged receipt of our “litigation hold” letter, and vociferously objected to our having the temerity to send such a letter, “rejecting” our characterization of documents to be preserved. Indeed, Ms. Benitez, you indicated that you took great offense at having been put on notice to preserve and maintain documents related to the issues of this litigation. You further advised however, that you would continue to advise “your clients as appropriate and, as always, will abide by my legal and ethical obligations.” Attached Response of Ms. Benitez.

The public reports released late on Friday, June 13, 2014 stated that the IRS now claims to have “lost” the emails of defendant Lois Lerner. These reports are particularly astonishing in light of your representations, Ms. Benitez, that [you] would “advise your clients, as appropriate, and [would] abide by your legal and ethical obligations.” The “lost” emails, from press reports, appear to cover a time period from January 2009 to April 2011. See Press Release, Committee on Ways and Means, IRS Claims to Have Lost Over 2 Years of Lerner Emails (June 13, 2014), available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506.

We are deeply troubled by this news and are concerned about the spoliation of information and documents pertaining to this case and the apparent failure on your part to (a) protect and preserve all potentially relevant information and (b) to advise us of such failure and spoliation when you first learned of it. We are even more concerned after receiving your assurances that you would “abide by your legal and ethical obligations.”

Accordingly, we hereby request that you advise us of the following:

1. What steps did each of you, as counsel for the Defendants, each of them, take to ensure that any and all documents as described in the litigation hold letter and as required by federal law were, in fact, preserved?

2. When did you learn that the destruction, loss or spoliation of emails of Defendant Lois Lerner had occurred?

3. What steps have you, each of you, taken to restore Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails?

4. Were the “lost” emails from Ms. Lerner’s computer at the IRS or her home computer?

5. Are there documents or records, as described in the Litigation Hold letter or the subpoenas issued to the IRS from any of the Committees, belonging to other defendants that have been “lost”?

We are most disturbed to learn this information from media reports and, in particular, after being chastised by Ms. Benitez regarding the fact that she “will abide by her legal and ethical obligations.” To Ms. Benitez in particular, were you aware of and/or did you participate in, authorize or otherwise sanction the destruction or “loss” of the Lois Lerner emails?

In addition to seeking responses to the questions in this letter, we also seek your consent to immediately allow a computer forensics expert selected by TTV to examine the computer(s) that is or are purportedly the source of Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails, including cloning the hard drives, and to attempt to restore what was supposedly “lost,” and to seek to restore any and all “lost” evidence pertinent to this litigation.

We also seek access to all computers, both official and personal, used by any and all of the Defendants from and after July 1, 2010, in order to ensure preservation of the documents of all Defendants in this action.

We wish to resolve our concerns amicably but, absent your consent, we will file such motions as deemed necessary and appropriate asking the Court to require that you respond to the questions contained in this letter, and to permit such forensic examination described herein and for such other relief as may be appropriate for this egregious breach of legal authority and professional ethics.

Due to the time-sensitive and urgent nature of this request, please respond by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2014.

Reason enough to not vote Republican…SEAN HANNITY. He’s a disgusting panty sniffer with Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Every night it is pound, pound, pound on Hillary. Surely sane people see through this warped man. Now he and probably Rove have dug up some info about when Hillary was a lawyer in Arkansas and defended a guy who supposedly raped a 12 year old. More to come after the commercial.

The outside law firm defending the IRS, with the approval of Holder no doubt, is a beltway white shoe Democrat firm. Typically, firms like this have lawyers trusted by the party who see the world through that prism, and a political fixer or two as well. It comes with the territory. Those who operate in that legal community would know the particulars better than I do, just guessing what I have seen with my own eyes with other firms like this in New York City. This partner could have an ethical and a legal problem. The biggest problem is there are, or appear to be, other ways to locate these emails. Thus, I cannot help but wonder why she would get involved in this spoliation, if indeed she did. It is a shame, but it is de riguer in those circles. Blood is thicker than water.
————–
Philip Steptoe and Col. Louis A. Johnson, classmates from the University of Virginia School of Law, formed Steptoe & Johnson in 1913 in Clarksburg, WV. In 1928, Steptoe & Johnson opened an office in Charleston, WV, to meet the expanding legislative and regulatory work available in the state capital. Meanwhile, Col. Johnson helped found the American Legion, bringing national prominence to himself and the firm when he served as the organization’s commander in the mid-1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Col. Johnson deputy secretary of war in 1937.

After leaving the Roosevelt administration, Col. Johnson opened the Washington D.C. office of Steptoe & Johnson in 1945. Shortly thereafter, Col. Johnson was again tapped for public service, this time by President Harry S. Truman, for whom he served as secretary of defense until 1950.

The firm’s Washington office grew quickly under Col. Johnson’s influence. Among its first clients were the members of the growing airlines industry, as well as pipelines, railroads, and foreign companies whose assets had been seized during World War II. In assisting these clients, Steptoe became known as a prominent firm in regulatory law, tax, and international trade.

In 1980, the firm began a period of growth, starting with the amicable separation of the Washington and West Virginia offices. The West Virginia firm known as Steptoe & Johnson PLLC is still based in Clarksburg, WV.

In 1987, a combination of client needs and business opportunities led to the opening of a Steptoe office in Phoenix. Since 1997, the firm has opened offices in Los Angeles (1997), London (2001), Brussels (2002), New York (2005), Century City, CA (2006), Chicago (2007), Beijing (2010), and Palo Alto (2014).

The firm’s attorneys have continued Col. Johnson’s tradition of government service, with dozens of Steptoe attorneys having served in high-level government positions. The firm is committed to pro bono service and community involvement

Clearly I thought Hillary was smarter than this. I don’t know how you back track from this. I know it’s been posted before, but really Hillary? I am sure Fox will address it.
___________________

These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.

9 quotes from Obama’s 2011 “Remarks on the End of the War in Iraq” that show his total lack of foresight [snip]

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -– all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -– all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.” [snip]

“This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.” [snip]

“We remember the grind of the insurgency -– the roadside bombs, the sniper fire, the suicide attacks. From the ‘triangle of death’ to the fight for Ramadi; from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south -– your will proved stronger than the terror of those who tried to break it.” [snip]

“We remember the specter of sectarian violence -– al Qaeda’s attacks on mosques and pilgrims, militias that carried out campaigns of intimidation and campaigns of assassination. And in the face of ancient divisions, you stood firm to help those Iraqis who put their faith in the future.” [snip]

“We remember the surge and we remember the Awakening -– when the abyss of chaos turned toward the promise of reconciliation. By battling and building block by block in Baghdad, by bringing tribes into the fold and partnering with the Iraqi army and police, you helped turn the tide toward peace.” [snip]

“And we remember the end of our combat mission and the emergence of a new dawn -– the precision of our efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq, the professionalism of the training of Iraqi security forces, and the steady drawdown of our forces. In handing over responsibility to the Iraqis, you preserved the gains of the last four years and made this day possible.” [snip]

“Part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who fought it. It’s not enough to honor you with words. Words are cheap. We must do it with deeds. You stood up for America; America needs to stand up for you.

That’s why, as your Commander-in Chief, I am committed to making sure that you get the care and the benefits and the opportunities that you’ve earned. For those of you who remain in uniform, we will do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our force –- including your families. We will keep faith with you.

We will help our wounded warriors heal, and we will stand by those who’ve suffered the unseen wounds of war. And make no mistake — as we go forward as a nation, we are going to keep America’s armed forces the strongest fighting force the world has ever seen. That will not stop.

That will not stop. But our commitment doesn’t end when you take off the uniform.” [snip]

“Because of you, in Afghanistan we’ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we’ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.” [snip]

“So here’s what I want you to know, and here’s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you.”

This is Hillary’s big night….Every word she utters tonight is going to be poured over and sliced and diced by friends and foes alike as to how Clinton’s mind is thinking and where she is going with 2016, every little word will be seized on to try and destroy her.

CNN’s town hall meeting with Clinton at 5 p.m. ET Tuesday at the Newseum in Washington.

This could be a triumph or an unmitigated disaster as it has come right smack bang in the middle of what can only be described as a massive foreign policy disaster that is unfolding with Iraq, Bergdahl, Ukraine, Russia.

“Maybe it’s just the wonderful wealth of experience that I’ve now had, maybe it’s because I am totally done with being really careful about what to say because somebody might think this instead of that. It just gets too exhausting and frustrating and it seems a whole lot easier to just put it out there and hope people get used to it…”

……………….

This is what i want, i want someone to just say what the rest of us are thinking, stop this endless pussyfooting around.

I do like this new say it as you see it style, it worked for Thatcher, get her 3 terms in the UK and frankly i’d rather have someone speaking their mind than some parsing politician who stands and thinks about what to say.

This was the year President Obama would go all in on the economy, elevating the struggles of the poor and the middle class to the top of his agenda. But that focus has been sporadic, overshadowed by foreign policy hot spots in Ukraine and Iraq and controversies like the swap for a U.S. prisoner in Afghanistan.

As Democrats demand that the White House lead with a unified economic message, Obama during the next several weeks is looking to cut through with an emphasis on working families, manufacturing, wages and the need for greater spending on infrastructure projects. The attention could be crucial in an election year when some Democrats in vulnerable races are not embracing other top Obama issues like climate change and health care.

ahh yes…the same IRS that will be overseeing Ocare and will be the arbitrator over the thousands and thousands of descrepicencies over who has been overpaid because the Ocare website never had a backend and people were promised subsidies on “the honor system”

the same IRS that will keep your tax return if they ‘say so’ whether you like it or not…

In an interview with MSN.com, First Lady Michelle Obama explained she used to struggle to feed her kids right—even though she received an education from Harvard and Princeton.

“Before coming to the White House, I struggled, as a working parent with a traveling, busy husband, to figure out how to feed my kids healthy, and I didn’t get it right,” she explained, sharing a story about her children’s doctor who pulled her aside to talk about her family diet.

“I thought to myself, if a Princeton and Harvard-educated professional woman doesn’t know how to adequately feed her kids, then what are other parents going through who don’t have access to the information I have?” she recalled.

She’s trying to pretend she didn’t have a nanny or a cook. Why not ask them if she’s too stupid or lacks common sense? Dumbass.

Update: Hillary Clinton on a CNN “townhall” at 5:00 EDT is sure to be asked about the news that is breaking: US captures first suspect in Benghazi attack. CNN’s “townhall” is bound to be boring. There will be questions CNN will feel they have to ask and they will ask them. But to get a sense of what CNN really wants to dish about listen to the questions they choose “from the public”.

The real show will be tonight on Fox News when two, real, tough, fair and balanced journalists (brutal Bret Baier at 6; mighty Greta Van Susteren at 7) question the unsinkable Hillary. Fox News is Ready for Hillary. Hillary better be ready for Fox News.

“I think I am safe in speaking for Greta to say that we are very much looking forward to talking with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tonight. And the interview certainly comes at a significant moment. Secretary Clinton’s time in the Obama administration gives her a unique position from which to provide valuable insight to a number of things happening right now. And while some of those have been discussed, there is much more to delve into that is not in her book – and which has not been followed-up on in various interviews. To make the most of our 30 minutes with the former first lady, Greta and I will split the questioning into four parts: 7 minutes for me, 7 minutes for Greta, 8 minutes for me and 8 minutes for Greta. We hope you’ll tune in.” – Bret Baier

It’s not just Lois Lerner’s e-mails. The Internal Revenue Service says it can’t produce e-mails from six more employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups, according to two Republicans investigating the scandal.

The IRS told Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp and subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany that computer crashes resulted in additional lost e-mails, including from Nikole Flax, the chief of staff to former IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who was fired in the wake of the targeting scandal.

Firstly, great post admin. I am proud to say that along with this family here, I foresaw trouble in the ME that I communicated to my friends and family. I heard a chorus of jeers and admonitions. It soothes my soul to no end to say I told you so every chance I get. Secondly, after the Foxers finish asking their questions, I have one for them.

I don’t know if this helps answer your question, but I believe she is on CNN live at 5 pm est and then the show repeats at 9 pm…6 pm your time – re: cable tv – maybe they will handle it like a debate where everyone sees it at the same time…

can’t address how Fox lines up, if nothing else they will repeat, they won’t leave the west coast out…

if all is delayed on west coast, i am sure the east coast will be here giving a blow by blow…

from ulsterman.
the corruption runs way deeper than we know. its an absolute lawness administration.

“Every day now, there is another example of crimes and cover ups associated with the Obama White House. Little reported by the Mainstream Media is an ongoing investigation that involves the U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce Department, (which oversees the Bureau) and the FBI.
The journalist most responsible for what little attention has been paid to this story is the Washington Examiner’s John Crudele. It was Crudele who in 2012, discovered the Philadelphia Office of the Census Bureau knowingly falsifying census data. That census worker then claimed he was directed to do so by higher ups. The Feds dismissed the claims, and the rest of the Mainstream Media quickly moved on.
Crudele persisted in his story though, a process which led him to a request for thousands of internal emails that included top ranking Census Bureau officials, some with ties to Barack Obama himself. Crudele was informed that over 2000 of these emails existed. The Feds gave him but a handful. (Sound familiar? It is the operational model of the Obama administration. Retract, redact, and re-classify. And then if that fails, simply destroy the evidence.)
Crudele continued to demand the emails via a Freedom of Information Act request. To date, the Census Bureau has refused to comply with the request, a violation of federal law. Officials involved in producing those emails have suddenly “retired”, while others have been “re-assigned” other positions within the Obama government.
Why this scandal so important? One, the Census Bureau oversees, along with the Commerce Department, the jobless report. As bad as those reports have been for the Obama White House, it is quite likely they are actually much-much worse without the alterations that took place when created said reports.
The Census Bureau also generates the Consumer Price Index report as well, another reflection of just how bad the Obama economy truly is. Why hasn’t this report more accurately reflected how high prices have gone up for all kinds of goods during the last five plus years of the Obama administration, a situation that is decimating the American Middle Class? Because the report is being modified to lessen the reality of just how bad things really are.
And what of statistics like gun violence in America that the administration so often uses to demand Americans give up their gun rights? Yup, that comes from the Census Bureau too. You think those figures aren’t being manipulated in a way that favors the political demands of the current administration?
Pre-determined reality is being manufactured all around us, courtesy of Obama Inc. Kudos to journalists like John Crudele who are pushing back against the machine. Let’s hope more join the fight…”

1) She’s just not that good at campaigning.
……she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf

2) The “fire in the belly”question. [She’s too old]

3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. [Everyone hates her]

4) Obama is leaving a mess. …Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically

Isn’t it strange how FOX is preparing for the interview with an AUTHOR ON A BOOK TOUR as if it were a presidential campaign debate. Brett Baer has said he has read the book and probably gone over it with a fine tooth comb and has watched bunches of interviews to prepare for a BOOK TOUR AUTHOR interview?? Has any possible presidential candidate who wrote a book in the past been so viciously attacked much less a possible, maybe candidate?

Funny how FOX never went after BO during his presidential campaigns like this and all of this hatred aired incessantly on FOX daily these days and for a “POSSIBLE” presidential candidate over two years before the election.

FOX seems to be going back to their “fair and balanced” vile selves they were when Bill was president.

So we shall see tonight if Gretta and Brett who have seemingly been fair really want to be respectful and hear Hillary’s story or of if they are just partisan hacks whose purpose is to trip her up so they can set up more attacks. Right now the jury is out so we shall see.

As for Hillary working across the aisles tonight, I fear that it really doesn’t matter what she says, they will nail her or if not during the interview, later on Bill O, Megan Kelly and of course on the silly, immature Hannity. Hillary’s words have been taken out of context the past week or two, twisted and redacted to attack her no matter what she says.

I have never forgotten since Bill was president all the vicious Republican lies and attacks and when Hillary was a candidate in 2008. I don’t understand that kind of absolute vicious hate tied up in Clinton Derangement Syndrome and still don’t.

The Obama administration, which had few serious setbacks during its first term, is now engulfed by them: the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the unraveling story about Benghazi, Libya, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the casual (and ignored) red line in Syria, Iraq’s disintegration after America left abruptly, al-Qaida’s resurgence, the secret waiting list and falsified data at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Taliban prisoners swap. The president’s defenders have explanations for each of them, but the problems are cumulating.

Several themes are emerging. The question is whether they will congeal into a clear, negative image of Obama and his presidency.

One obvious theme is that Obama, like Bush, is a poor manager. He doesn’t pay attention to crucial details, surrounds himself with sycophants and doesn’t hold anyone accountable. The poster child for these deficiencies is Kathleen Sebelius, who ran Health and Human Services during the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius failed to anticipate the HealthCare.gov disaster and the president never inquired. When the rollout failed disastrously, Obama calmly announced he was angry, but retained Sebelius. (He did the same with Gen. Eric Shinseki at Veterans Affairs.)

….

That brings us to the second theme: the White House maintains an arms-length relationship with the truth. The press, so docile during Obama’s first term, now smells deceit and has begun doing its job: questioning the administration. The president is being drawn in and tarnished. That was clearest when the IRS scandal broke. Obama initially said he was “outraged” and asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate. Holder appointed a mid-level official to head the inquiry. She does not inspire confidence. She’s a generous donor to President Obama’s campaigns and does not specialize in white-collar crimes. The FBI, also under Holder, didn’t bother to question the IRS targets for months. Obama’s anger vanished as soon as the public stopped paying attention. In fact, he concluded there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS. How does he know? The DOJ investigation is ongoing and supposedly secret. The IRS and White House won’t cooperate with congressional investigators, and the IRS official at the center of the scandal, Lois Lerner, has taken the Fifth Amendment. Nothing to see here. Move along.

What might turn this parade of problems into an indelible image are the most recent scandals: the systemic corruption at the Veterans Affairs, quickly followed by the controversial swap of five Taliban prisoners for a captured U.S. soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. At the VA, the president clung to his appointed leader, Shinseki, until the public was marching with pitchforks. In the Taliban case, the president did not consult senior military and intelligence officials and refused to inform Congress in advance. As with Benghazi, the White House held its information tight and kept changing its story.

Telling you right now, she is into Presidential mode. Hillary is being very open about her feelings of that night and that all the rumours and questions about that night will probably never be answered as it was a very frustrating night.

Hillary “i believe the buck stops with the president” in response to the question of whether her plan that she put forward would have worked, basically saying Obama made the wrong choice without actually saying it. Clever.

Hillary on Children over the border…”children should be with their families but the US needs to help in sorting out the reasons of why they are coming here and the uptick in violence in those countries”

Q on plans for the proposed family act on maternal leave in workforce.

Hillary mentions Bill’s act in 1993 was a good start but more is needed, its unfinished business and needs a major look at, needs more political concesus, states need to trial and error and then work out a national plan..

“if you are going to go into the public arena, take criticism, seriously, not personally but be who you are” “discipline of gratitude when I get in a frustated mood”

“had to learn and get better taking criticism” “it was hard to get used to in the beginning but I am like any other human being, i get hurt, i am competitive”

ON the PRESIDENCY….Amanpour went there…….”radical candour, thinking about all my choices, wont get into decision making mode and mostly moved by what is needed in the country, what is the vision and what can lead us there, some paint a beautiful vision and can you have the tenacity to lead us there”, “with bill for 8 years, senate for 8 then with Obama for 4, i will think about all that but not right now”

About Obama, taking the SOS job……”it was difficult to really gauge how i was presenting my self and how i was received” “I am beyond that pain” “A woman in any high position is constantly judged and falls into badly editing yourself” “its unfair with you men, you get up, you shower, us women, hair, make up and the rest”

Are you getting closer to decide “No” are their other women “yes” “but i have gone through it, it is a very difficult process, they have not done it and i have the experience now from before” “That experience shapes you, gives you stamina, brilliance”

“first of all, 2 groups who need to do more, elected officials and the political operatives” “citizens must demand their elected officials to do what they were elected to do” “need to build much better relationships, needs more cross state conversations”

“Children should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.”

“I don’t support the return of the draft” “we need to do much for the opportunity for national service” “national service does give you a chance to mix the population up, let people meet and work with each other”

Q…..WHY RUN…………..”Thats on the ledger…………”i don’t want to look past my grandchild, i will make the decision based on how i feel and what I can do, won’t be rushed into it”…………”however there have been a lot of grandfathers who have done it”……..

I liked her answer on the children, not so much Bengahzi. ..she is not coming clean on that.She took jabs at Republican’s for wanting an ID for voting, yet she wants to register everyone at 18.
She wants to outlaw certain guns, that won’t go well with gun rights. You have to think about the government’s arsenal…that’s what the right is all about, not duck hunting.

I liked her answer on the children, not so much Bengahzi. ..she is not coming clean on that.She took jabs at Republican’s for wanting an ID for voting, yet she wants to register everyone at 18.
She wants to outlaw certain guns, that won’t go well with gun rights. You have to think about the government’s arsenal…that’s what the right is all about, not duck hunting.
She looked good. Better than in sometime.

Fuck the gun lobby, i think its fine, she was all for good useful realtime universal background checks for normal guns, but like myself, who the hell needs assault rifles up the wazoo unless you are starting a war.

Agreed, Southern B, I was just glad to see Moon’s uninterrupted reporting. Sounds as if she did a fantastic job. And as someone said upthread, this can’t have been about selling books. Hillary is either campaigning or looking at the response her tour generates and its impact on her approval rating to assess whether or not to run.

If you read what i said, its perfectly fine to own guns but when you start arming yourself up like you are running a small army then i have a problem with loons getting hold of fast shooting semi automatic high powered rifles that can take out a small town.

When they start being reasonable then they can subscribe to reasoned debate.

Hillary on Fox News. The first segment was Bret Baier digging deep into Benghazi. Greta Van Susteren for her segment dug deep into the Bergdahl swap. Hillary was gracious throughout and answered all the questions well.

The government loves your thought process but it’s not about the crazy young men that either are not being parented or the system broke down. Last crazy was seeing a therapist, made public videos,his mother went to the police. He used his car and knifes besides guns by the way.
It’s about our right to protect ourselves against aggression by our own government. THE people of the United States of America have given their lives to protect this right.
If we are not allowed to obtain weapons that can deter a Fascist government, God help us, because all would be lost. Germany Nazism, Mao Communism, Stalin, ring a bell?
No one wants to see the senseless murders in our schools, but the truth is, no one is parenting the kids and present laws are not being followed. The family unit in America is broken. Out of wedlock births, single parent, about 70% in some areas.
By the way, I don’t own a gun.

Did you hear my Hillary’s answer to the question on Putin? How could a rational American NOT want her to be president? Nothing ideological, no demagoguery, no high schoolish insults, but rather a well thought out strategy on how to deal with him with patience, persistence and strength.

Clinton reveals she had doubts about video explanation after Benghazi strike

Hillary Clinton, in a sit-down interview with Fox News, suggested Tuesday that she had doubts from the outset about whether the Benghazi terror attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film — though her State Department ended up pushing that narrative for days.

“This was the fog of war,” Clinton said, when asked about the administration’s controversial public explanation of the attack.

“My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it — it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people,” she said, in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren.

Clinton added: “There’s no doubt terrorists were involved.”

The former secretary of State spoke to Fox News as she tours the country in promotion of her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” returning in full force to the public spotlight after leaving the Obama State Department last year. The former senator and first lady addressed a wide range of topics, from the NSA scandal to Iraq to the internal deliberations of the Obama administration.

Clinton is widely believed to be preparing for a 2016 presidential run, though has been coy on that question for months.

Still dogging her political prospects, however, is the controversy over the 2012 Benghazi terror attack, in which four Americans died.

The State Department, under her leadership at the time, continues to face questions — and a congressional probe — over whether it ignored security warnings leading up to the attack, and why the department and others in the administration overlooked evidence of a terror attack in favor of the faulty explanation that it was fueled by a protest.

Hours before the interview, the administration announced that a key suspect in the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala, was captured by a U.S. team over the weekend and was being brought back to the United States to face criminal prosecution. The capture could help temper criticism that the Obama administration had not brought anybody to justice for the deadly assault, though other suspects remain at large.

Clinton said Tuesday that the capture over the weekend shows the U.S. will go after anyone who targets Americans.

“We have an unwavering commitment to go after anyone no matter how long it takes who is responsible for harming Americans,” she told Fox News.

Update II: MoonOnPluto in the comments section provides coverage of the Hillary appearance on CNN. As to the Fox News interview Hillary did very well. Hillary planted a lot of time bombs against Obama in these interviews (for example calling for more investigations of the IRS scandal). Without naming Sarah Palin while answering a question about Sarah Palin, Hillary shows some sister solidarity. She also attacks age based discrimination from Obama White House dudes against Ambassador Holbrook. Here’s Part I of the interview which is mostly about Benghazi and Bergdahl:

thank you admin for the video coverage you have so far provided…I did not get to watch the Fox interview live so I have been catching up here…

…sounds pretty good…no real fireworks…like how greta drilled down into some important issues, ie women/sexism, IRS

liked how Hillary is more and more speaking on her own behalf…using phrases like “on my watch” …as time goes on, she can remind people that she was only in the O admin for the FIRST term…he was on his own after that…she can’t be held responsible for his actions…’not on her watch’…

speaking for myself, worth repeating, I so admire how articulate and knowledgeable Hillary is…starting to feel like she would be such as easy fit and such a great change as our President…please stay forthright…people will resonate towards you if they can trust you…

**************************

thought it was funny when the first thing out of Van Jones’s mouth over at CNN was: “this is the closest he has heard Hillary come to throwing Obama under the bus”

What I would like to know is this: Hillary has said on at least two occasions that she takes responsibility for Benghazi. My question would be what exactly is she taking responsibility for, and what is she not taking responsibility for. The first time was when she addressed a group of reporters outside the country, whereupon my friend and I did not believe she said that, believed that the hyper partisan left wing media was up to their old Russertesque tricks of misquoting public figures and then ambushing the with the misquotes. But we later determined, through source we deemed credible, namely non-big media reporters that she had used those words. I suspect she has some minor involvement in the security problem, no involvement in the failure to save the troops once they were under attack, and minor involvement in the cover story, which we know for certain came from Tom Donolin. If I had been advising her at the time, then I would have advised her to avoid broad statements like I take responsibility for Benghazi, and handing someone like Ron Paul a weapon to use against her once he is done obsessing about the Lewinsky affair–like he learned nothing from the failed impeachment effort. But at this point, it cannot be helped. Since she is not in position to name the guilty parties, my hope is that the Benghazi select committee will do that through the testimony of credible witnesses.

Another thing they attack Hillary for is weaving myths in some of her speeches. Truth to tell, this is what politicians do. Often, these are morality plays intended to teach, and at other times they attest to attributes which the politician either has, or hopes to have. And in all cases, they are intended to connect with the audiences. I am and have always been a Reaganite. So when I tell you Dutch did the same thing for the same reasons, this was perceived to be a virtue. But the real kicker is Disraeli, the Tory leader and consort of Queen Victoria. If memory serves, and in this case I believe it does:

I have been to more places than I can remember

And-

I remember more places than I have been

When I first laid eyes on those words, I thought he was simply noting the loss of memory which is one of the many ravages of old age. I now know that was not what he was saying at all. He was describing the art of being a successful politician. A good one is a story teller, and by design a myth maker. That is no defense for Obama however. He is a traitor.

correction: the talking points came from Tom Donolin. The video story originated in tweets from our government which were aimed at defusing the riot in Egypt. Donolin, among others, decided that they could be used to deflect the administrations’s responsibility for Benghazi and their political narrative that al Qaeda was on the run. The other thing that they did not want disclosed is the mortar attacks against our Benghazi installation were launched by Iranian mortar men–meaning that this was not only an act of terrorism, but state sponsored terrorism, by the very people Obama swore he would sit down with and negotiate in the first year of his presidency. This casts further doubts on the wisdom of allying ourselves with them against the Sunni terrorists whom Obama was supporting up to now. When it comes to sound strategy, and for all his professed brilliance by big media, Obama is the proverbial blind man in the dark room looking for the black cat that is not there, and whatever he is doing today, he will be doing the reverse tomorrow.

Sugar and spice and everything nice–except for the wicked witch of the west nannie poopie, who stinks up congress.

What are little boys made of?

Frogs and snails and puppy dog tails—except for Obama.

Obama is a snake, who seeks to destroy this nation.

This nation will not be saved by weaklings
Subtle and suave and mild (like Obama, and is big media whores)
But by men and women with the hearts of Vikings
And the simple faith of a child. etc.–to paraphrase the Yukon poet, Robert Service

All of what we are seeing now, the murders, the refugees, the destruction are the fruits of the poisonous tree, which is the incoherent foreign policy of Obama and his predecessor. With respect to Bush, bad as he was, the old saying holds true for this nation: the devil you know is better than the devil you get.

Hillary Clinton appeared on Fox News this evening, fielding questions for almost half an hour from Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren. Clinton’s demeanor was good throughout. She was friendly, receptive to the questions, and adroit in her answers without, for the most part, appearing too evasive.

Clinton benefitted from the approach of the two questioners. Neither Baier nor Van Susteren was belligerent. And though both were as persistent as the format allowed, neither seemed to looking for a “gotcha” moment.

Tellingly, Clinton seems to have had a better time of it at Fox than on certain lefty outlets. In part, this is probably down to Fox’s desire to “play nice” (and Baier probably is nice). But I also think it reflects this deeper reality: the left fears that it is stuck with Clinton, and strongly resents it; the right will be free to shoot at Clinton for the duration and feels no urgent need to come out with both guns blazing at this early juncture.

Many of Baier’s questions were from the “who, what, where” school of journalism. For example, he wanted to know with whom Clinton spoke on the night of September 11, 2012, where she was physically, and so forth. Pinning Clinton down on specifics may prove valuable as the Benghazi investigation proceeds, but it wasn’t likely to produce any major news on the day, and it didn’t.

Van Susteren’s questioning was somewhat idiosyncratic. She wanted Clinton to admit that it’s unconstitutional for the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant (Clinton didn’t). And for some reason, she wanted to talk about Clinton’s revelation in her book that some members of Obaam’s team were disrespectful towards Richard Holbrooke. Even “inside baseball’s” biggest fans must have rolled their eyes at this line of questioning.

Nonetheless, the interview was revealing in several ways. First, it confirmed the Clinton is prepared to distance herself from President Obama.

For example, on the Bergdahl deal, she insisted that she wanted a different, broader deal, and declined to come right out and say she would have made the deal Obama ultimately agreed to. She also implied that the Obama State Department may not be doing enough to free the Marine being held by Mexican authorities.

Clinton even went so far as to lump Obama together with President Bush (and her husband). Asked if she was ever disappointed by Obama, she said that she has disagreed with all three presidents she has known, but would only be disappointed if she thought they weren’t doing what they think is best for America. None of the three presidents fits that description, she added.

I’ve heard more ringing endorsements.

Second, although Clinton gave a polished performance and came off as reasonably likeable, some of her answers on the big topics were weak. On Benghazi, her fixation on the video in the aftermath of the attack continues to haunt her. As usual, she relied on the “fog of war”: [snip]

Clinton couldn’t explain to Baier why her department was telling Libya one thing and telling the American people something else. In the end, the best she could do was claim that the video was clearly a factor in the demonstrations in Egypt and might have been a factor in Benghazi.

Beyond that, Clinton urged us to read the Benghazi chapter of her book.

Clinton also struggled to defend her claim that the five Taliban commanders released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl pose no threat to the United States. She relied on the fact that the five are in Qatar and “are supposed to be constrained from what they can do, and certainly they are not supposed to be permitted to travel.”

Clinton’s resort to the word “supposed” gives the game away. And even if the supposed constraints are meaningful, they are good for only one year.

Clinton’s Obama problem came to the fore when she was asked whether she agreed with Obama that the IRS scandal is “phony.” She admitted that the scandal might be real, but defended Obama’s comment by interpreting it to mean that the scandal is being used by some for partisan purposes.

A less tortured answer would have served Clinton better.

But Clinton is stuck with tortured answers on a range of questions. Even if she delivers them as well as she did tonight on Fox, the questions won’t go away.

UPDATE: John Fund was also impressed for the most part with Hillary’s performance on Fox.

Read the whole thing. Well also try to get the Fox panel discussion video.

After a week of sometimes rocky interviews promoting her new book, “Hard Choices” about her years as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton largely kept her footing in Tuesday night’s 30-minute Fox News interview with Greta Van Susteren and Bret Baier.

Mrs Clinton looked composed and confident in her interview, and avoided major gaffes such as her claim last week that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2000.

When it came to the terror attack on Benghazi, Clinton was able to use the complexity of the attack and its aftermath to her advantage. She frequently reminded the audience of the “fog of war” that makes it impossible to know everything at the time it was happening.

When it came to the Bowe Berdahl prisoner swap, she got lucky with her defense of her statement that the five freed Taliban prisoners represented no threat to the U.S. She noted the prisoners would be under close supervision by authorities in Qatar and couldn’t travel. What wasn’t mentioned is that the Taliban are free to leave Qatar in a year so Clinton wasn’t pressed to explain what would prevent them from rejoining a jihad then

When asked about the 64% of Americans who believe the U.S. is on the wrong track, Clinton handled the question well, pointing out that “we need to get back on track” but managing to avoid direct criticism of her old boss, President Obama.

She did put some distance between herself and Obama on the IRS scandal, making it clear she agreed that any controversy involving that powerful agency should concern Americans. She implied she didn’t think it was the kind of “phony scandal” the president has dismissed it as. She called for a continued investigation into wrongdoing at the IRS but insisted it be depoliticized as much as possible.

For a figure as political and polarizing as Hillary Clinton is, Tuesday night’s interview was an accomplishment. She was able to project a “kinder and gentler” image.

All in all, her opponents were given no new ammunition but supporters of President Obama were put on notice that she will continue to distance herself from his policies in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

Highly organized and bloodthirsty, the radical Islamist army called ISIS took but a few days to subjugate the cities of northern Iraq as it dreams of taking over the entire country — while President Obama played it cynically cool.

The group’s stunning, barbaric march prompted the President on Friday to offer to review a range of options because America has “a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria.”

Returned now to the White House from a long-weekend family vacation in California, the President must face the awful reality that he dodged last week:

ISIS is already firmly in charge of large swaths of both of those countries, has ambitions to devour more and is showily slaughtering scores of captured and unarmed prisoners.

Al Qaeda Nation is being bloodily born before the world’s eyes.

The battle — for now and surely for the long run — has been lost, in no small part because Obama declined to show strength at crucial moments when strength was needed. Still worse, boxed in by his own failures, he’s flailing for a strategy desperately enough to consider partnering with Iran.

Yes, that Iran, the country whose regime has held Americans hostage, exported terror against the U.S., supplied weapons to insurgents who killed American troops in the Iraq War and driven insistently toward nuclear weapons capability. Just this month, the grand ayatollah there scoffed, “America cannot do a damn thing.”

Yes, that Iran. The taste in the mouth is awful.

The world is reaping what Obama helped sow.

Elected on the promise of ending the Iraq War, the President was true to his word. He wound down the conflict, enabling Vice President Joe Biden to boast in 2010 that Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”

“We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq,” Obama said in 2011 as the last U.S. troops left a war that cost nearly 4,500 of them their lives.

But he left no residual force to combat terrorism, having failed to reach a troop agreement with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In our absence, ISIS grew quickly into a malignant force.

Made up of Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq and who despise the Shiite majority, ISIS staged more than 600 attacks in 2011, up from 34 the year before. With no U.S. troops to control them, and with Maliki repressing Sunnis, ISIS followed up in 2012 with more than 400 attacks.

When civil war broke out across the border in Syria, Obama proved impotent. He called for President Bashar Assad’s ouster to no avail. He threatened missile strikes if Assad used chemical weapons, then he dropped the threat after Assad fatally gassed 1,400 people. He considered and then ruled out providing militarily significant arms to moderate anti-Assad forces.

ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his fighters marched into Obama’s vacuum, seized territory in southern Syria and proclaimed in January that he planned to create his own domain by taking ground in Iraq, including the capital Baghdad.

He also made clear that he had a larger target, saying on an audio recording:

“Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching.”

You can’t say that Obama wasn’t warned.

Overeager to leave Iraq, gun-shy about intervening in Syria and insufficiently vigilant about the rising threat of ISIS, the President opened the way to an Islamist force of unprecedented power.

The toll wreaked by his disengagement from the world and retreat from the use of American influence is severe. While ISIS expands its reach with summary executions possibly running into the thousands, Obama is left to offload onto Maliki all responsibility for the chaos that’s happened and all that’s to come.

When Republicans are begging Hillary to run on Obama’s record, and cast her candidacy as Obama III, Hillary should wake up and realize that the trap the left is setting for her, in urging her to do exactly that, is a surefire way for her to lose the election and for them to maintain their choke hold on the party. Seeing is believing:
————————
Sure, Hillary Clinton should promise to fulfill Barack Obama’s legacy!

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | June 17th, 2014 at 07:30 PM | 12

I don’t really want* to fisk this article on how Hillary Clinton should run on a platform of being Barack Obama’s third term – she totally should, by the way – but it’s hard not to fisk when somebody leads off with a sentence this interruptible. So let me just interject, the one time:

Conventional wisdom has it that President Obama’s middling poll numbers will be a drag on Hillary Clinton’s presumed march toward the presidency.

…Actually, conventional wisdom has it that President Obama’s second term poll numbers are awful, are likely to continue to be so, and are already notably below average for Presidents halfway through their second term. That’s because conventional wisdom knows that Gallup has a website where it keeps track of such things.

As to the actual suggestions: the author recommends that Hillary Clinton campaign on Common Core – as in, supporting it, and never mind that even liberal parents across the country are starting to spit and test the edge of their knives at the sound of that particular phrase. Or student loan reform: but not the ‘make debts dischargeable by bankruptcy and put schools partially on the hook for the bad loans they arrange’ model. No, instead, the idea there would be to throw yet more money at the problem and then get confused when prices go up again. And finishing this trifecta of futility would be following in the footsteps of Barack “I don’t pay my own female staffers the same as I do my male staffers” Obama and advocating that other people give equal pay for equal work.

Oh, and mumblemumbleguncontrolobamacareimmigrationmumblemumblemumble.

Empirical evidence to the contrary, it wasn’t exactly my intent to unload on the poor guy who has to somehow turn five and a half years of Obama by-products into something that people might not retch at the mere sight of. I’ve been there, you see. I know how it feels when your party has given you nothing to work with – and at least then I still had a President with a strong moral sense and a stubborn refusal to bend on the policies that he knew that he had to defend, if he wanted to avoid going to Hell when he died. This guy doesn’t even have that, and while I will not judge anybody who callously shrugs at the author’s poor life choices I’m just a big softy sentimentalist at heart, especially since it doesn’t actually cost me anything.

But seriously: Hillary Clinton should totally run on a promise for four more years of Barack Obama. She should yell that from every podium, soapbox, sound stage, and maybe yodel it from the top of the Grand Canyon. No. Really. I insist.

I’d say so, Obama’s Presidency has been over for a good bit, he is off on permanent vacation……..Quite clear the party machinery has made a move.

This is why i said that the re-emergence now of Hillary is no accident, they need a new adult in the room to direct the party and they have absolutely decided on Hillary to take them through the midterms and beyond…..The Obama machine is dead, the Clinton machine is about to ramp it up a few gears.

The telling thing is….Obama is President but is anyone really asking his opinion….NO, they all seem to be asking Hillary what her opinion is, which frankly seems strange but they are looking for someone, anyone to stand up and shake this Admin into shape.

Last night on the Fox interview, I keep thinking of one question to Hillary and her answer.

I wonder if I am remembering it correctly…

She was asked, the night of the Benghazi strike, where was the President? She said before the question was asked, that she had gone to her DC home and was in on secure conference calls with the WhiteHouse. She mainly said the Military brass was there too.

When asked if Baracko was there at the call, I think she said the commander/generals said Obama was there.

The percentage of Americans approving of President Barack Obama’s handling of foreign policy issues has dropped to the lowest level of his presidency as he faces multiple overseas challenges, including in Iraq, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Additionally, the public is evenly split on whether Obama is a competent manager of the federal bureaucracy. And a majority of respondents – 54 percent – believe the term-limited president is no longer able to lead the country.

My guess is that the head of the state republican party who is charged with enforcing the law against cross overs will fail to discharge that duty. Why? Because he was installed by establishment people. Ironically, if he fails to enforce the law, and if the cross over black carry the election for Cochrane, I believe the conservatives will stay home in the general election and let the democrat win. The grass roots have been violated by the establishment once too often, and they are tone deaf to what is occurring in the country.
——————-

JACKSON, Mississippi — Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is appealing to Democratic voters to cross party lines and vote in an upcoming runoff election against his conservative challenger, state senator Chris McDaniel. But a noted election law expert says that may be illegal.

J. Christian Adams, a former Civil Rights Division attorney at the Department of Justice with experience litigating election law cases in Mississippi, said a law there prevents people from voting in the primary for candidates they don’t plan to support in the general election.

Adams is now a high-profile author and news commentator for conservative outlet PJ Media. He resigned his position at the U.S. Department of Justice in 2010 over how the Obama administration treated a famous case against the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at the polls in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in which he participates.”

“Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican primary,” Adams said in an emailed statement. “Obviously poll workers aren’t mind readers. But if someone doesn’t intend to support the nominee in November, then that person isn’t allowed to vote in the Republican primary.”

In addition, the state Democratic Party sued Gov. Haley Barbour and others in the mid-2000s regarding just that matter—prompting United States District Judge W. Allen Pepper to write in a June 8, 2007, opinion that it is the responsibility and right of the political party holding a primary election to ensure that the elections are fair and legal. In the case of a Republican primary and runoff, only Republicans vote, and in the case of a Democrat primary and runoff, only Democrats vote—and it is the role of the political parties to ensure that process is handled correctly.

The Supreme Court determined in a 2005 case that the First Amendment “protects the right of political parties to associate with fellow members and disassociate with non-members,” Judge Pepper wrote in his opinion. So technically it’s the party’s responsibility—i.e., in this case, state GOP chairman Joe Nosef’s responsibility—to protect GOP voters’ First Amendment rights by working to keep Democrats from voting in the GOP primary runoff.

Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of national conservative election integrity organization True the Vote, told Breitbart News she thinks Nosef must step up and enforce these laws. Engelbrecht and her organization are in Mississippi right now, preparing for the election with poll watchers from around the country to work to prevent any shenanigans on election day next week.

“Chairman Nosef must understand that this matter is not playing out in an echo chamber; people across the country are now suspicious about what they see happening in Mississippi,” Engelbrecht said in an emailed statement. “Breaking this law or any other voter integrity law – erodes America’s confidence in our elections. With only a handful of days remaining until the runoff, it is Chairman Nosef’s responsibility to enforce the rule of law and restore our trust.”

Nosef hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the matter from Breitbart News.

A group of conservative state senators who support Cochran’s primary challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, are demanding that Nosef intervene to keep this practice from happening.

The group of state senators rallying him highlights McDaniel’s bench of local power brokers fighting from the ground up against Cochran’s political establishment team fighting from the top down in this election. It’s been a common theme in this Mississippi primary: McDaniel’s power comes from grassroots activists and local lawmakers throughout the state, whereas Cochran’s comes from hubs in Jackson, MS, and Washington, D.C. While the state senator team backing McDaniel is constantly appearing alongside him throughout the state at campaign rallies, the group rarely unites to push a message like it is now.

Their calls come largely in response to reports Tuesday from allegations by Mississippi Democratic Party chairman Rickey Cole that a super PAC backing Cochran is routing money to Democratic operatives for get out the vote activities.

Cole said noted Democratic operative James “Scooby Doo” Warren, who confirmed to the Clarion-Ledger newspaper he is working for Cochran, is known for paying individuals to vote and providing “walking around money” to volunteers. Warren has not publicly addressed the allegations, and Pete Perry, the Cochran ally and Hinds County GOP Chairman whom the super PAC money was routed through, said he hopes that such activities aren’t occuring.

Sen. Philip Gandy of Waynesboro told Breitbart News he’s equally “deeply disturbed” to hear “allegations of funds being funneled to encourage Democrats to vote in the June 24 Republican primary runoff,” and called for the state Republican Party to launch an investigation.

“It is shameful that some in the Republican party would stoop to such a level of courting the Democrat vote in a Republican primary,” Gandy said. “I call on the Republican party to get involved and to get to the bottom of these allegations.”

State Sen. Angela Hill of Picayune cited the same law Adams did in her comment to Breitbart News, saying that Cochran’s supporters “should read” that law.

“A responsible party should investigate these allegations,” Hill said, adding that she thinks this reflects poorly on the state GOP.

“The Republican Party has never been the food stamp party, or the party of pork until desperation set in with Thad Cochran’s re-election bid,” Hill said. “I have never seen such open collaboration to get Democrats to spoil a Republican party primary or runoff as is being openly displayed by Thad Cochran operatives in the MS GOP establishment.”

“Many have worked for years to build the Republican Party and sent their checks to an organization who has pledged to support the Republican ideals of limited government, free markets, self-reliance, and fiscal responsibility, so it is sad to see the party leadership across the state reach out to Democrats in an organized fashion to try to keep a proven conservative out of Washington,” she continued. “This begs the question ‘What does the MS GOP establishment really stand for?’”

Sen. Michael Watson of Pascagoula added that these efforts could harm the electoral prospects of all other Republicans in future elections.

“I trust the state party apparatus is doing its job and working to protect the integrity of the primary process,” Watson told Breitbart News. “At a minimum, it seems there should be an investigation into some of the allegations. If there’s not, I foresee a real problem for them with the base of the party in next year’s election cycle.”

State Sen. Tony Smith of Picayune called on the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate the matter.

“I am very troubled to learn of the tactics being used in an attempt to sway the outcome of the Republican primary,” Sen. Tony Smith of Picayune told Breitbart News. “To buy votes or influence from those who have no intentions to vote for the republican nominee in November is absurd. I ask that US Attorney Greg Davis investigate these allegations as quickly as possible.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Jackson has not responded to a request for comment on the matter.